Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies?

An independent commission found Manchester City arranged "sham" sponsorship contracts to disguise owner funding between 2009/10 and 2017/18. City denies it, says the decision is unsafe and will appeal. As of October 1, 2026, no sanction has been set.

Claim in dispute

The Premier League said on September 29, 2026 that an independent commission found that between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with a number of its commercial partners as part of a disguised funding scheme, in which the sponsors were required to pay only a portion of the relevant fees and Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd, which owned the club, funded the remainder, and that "by its conduct the club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules."

Read the original text

The Etihad Stadium in Manchester, home of Manchester City.

Case period:November 2, 2018

Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished October 1, 2026Updated October 1, 2026

Premier LeagueManchester City FC

Sports Governance Soccer

Overview

This case asks whether Manchester City used sponsorship contracts that an independent Premier League commission described as shams, and related arrangements, to misstate its finances and circumvent the Premier League's financial rules between the 2009/10 and 2017/18 seasons. Each statement is labeled against one reference point: the proposition that City did so, as the commission found. In this case, Condemned means the speaker asserted or endorsed that finding, and Denied means the speaker said the finding is false or that the conduct did not occur. A speaker who rejected only their own involvement or the process, who backed the club without addressing the finding, or who declined to take a side is labeled for what the words say, and each rationale names the closest competing label. The case does not decide the sanction, whether the commission's procedure was fair, the fitness of any owner or executive, compensation claims, the independent regulator's powers or any UEFA matter. Those appear only as attributed background. Everything here is current as of October 1, 2026, and the story is still changing.

What the commission decided. The Premier League began investigating City in December 2018 and referred charges to a commission under Section W of its rules in February 2023. The commission held a 42-day hearing that ended in December 2024. The Premier League says the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that the decision is a "final award," which is why the league could publish it. The league has published only a redacted, 40-page core decision (opens in a new tab) and says a large number of appendices will follow when it is able. The decision says City was charged with "well over 100 individual breaches" in four categories and denied all of them. It says the commission found each charge proven "bar Charge 4(B)," a co-operation charge. Within Charge 4 it found City breached its duties of co-operation in the majority of the respects alleged in Charge 4(A) in each respect alleged in Charge 4(C) and in the respect alleged in Charge 4(D). Outlets count 115 charges and report 114 proven. The decision gives no total, and the Premier League's statement (opens in a new tab) says three of the four alleged co-operation breaches were upheld. The decision is a first-instance decision, and the sanction has not been decided.

The commission's findings on the figures. The commission found that in early 2010 the club devised a plan to disguise shareholder funding as commercial revenue. In what it calls the Disguised Funding Scheme, the Abu Dhabi sponsors were liable for, and paid, only a base sum, while Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), which owned the club, paid the rest as what it calls tagged sums, and the club recorded the full amount as sponsorship income. Of the 949.94 million pounds the club recorded as income from Abu Dhabi sponsors between 2009/10 and 2017/18, the commission found 119.25 million pounds was base fees the sponsors paid and 830.69 million pounds was tagged sums paid by ADUG that should have been recorded as equity contributions. The decision's table shows tagged sums of 22.5 million pounds in 2009/10 and 134.73 million in 2017/18. The commission also found that three further arrangements funded by ADUG kept about 16.77 million pounds of costs out of the club's expenses, and that an arrangement with an entity called Fordham, which bought the club's players' image rights, overstated income by 24.5 million pounds and understated expenses by 49.414 million. The Premier League says the combined effect was to inflate revenues and reduce costs by "more than £900 million." Adding the decision's own figures gives about 921 million by our arithmetic. The commission found that the club's accounts for all nine seasons did not give a true and fair view and that, by its conduct, "the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules." It accepted that many other strands of a revenue project called Project Longbow were genuine.

How the commission reasoned, and what it set aside. The commission found that a number of the Abu Dhabi sponsorship agreements were shams, along with the Fordham arrangement and three further arrangements funded by ADUG. It added that if it was wrong about that, the tagged sums were still equity contributions in substance, and that with the agreements restated to fair market value the club still failed the Premier League's profitability and sustainability limits and UEFA's break-even requirement. It rejected as untrue what the decision calls City's explanation, that the sponsors were always liable for the full fees and sometimes received financial assistance from the Abu Dhabi government, and described it as an explanation the club had "concocted well after the event." It found that evidence from a number of important club witnesses "was false in a number of key respects" and that some of them gave evidence they knew to be untrue. It rejected City's criticisms of the Premier League's investigation and prosecution. The sponsors' names and most individuals' names are redacted in the published decision, and the commission said it did not need to make any finding on the Premier League's case about Abu Dhabi politics and governance.

City's response. In a statement on September 29, City said it is "innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League" and that "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions." It called the commission's published decision an "opinion" that "contains clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe," and said it would pursue the appeal avenues open to it. The statement also says the club has respected due process for eight years on the basis that the league's board and executive would behave as an independent, impartial and fair-minded regulator. City's chief executive, Ferran Soriano, told staff in a video that evening that the whole case "is based on a single false accusation" that the owner's personal money was put into the club through Abu Dhabi sponsors, and that bank statements, money transfers and witnesses show it did not happen. The decision records City's case before the commission as being that the sponsors were always liable for the full fees and sometimes received financial assistance from the Abu Dhabi government, and the commission rejected that account. It also says the club had criticized the league's investigation and its decision to bring the charges, and that it rejected those criticisms.

Sponsors. The commission's published decision redacts the names of the sponsors. Etihad Airways, City's principal shirt sponsor since 2009, said on September 30 that it "categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests the airline has ever been involved in improper commercial arrangements," that it is not named in the published findings, and that the Premier League never engaged with it. It said it will seek legal counsel on its options. The Premier League declined to comment when BBC Sport asked about the statement. Sky Sports reported on October 1 that Lucozade, Kellogg's and Revolut said they are not commenting while the process is ongoing, and that Majestic Wines would not say whether it will continue its partnership with City. These are current City sponsors, and the published decision names no sponsor. DI does not suggest that any of them was involved in the arrangements the commission described.

What happens next. The commission decided liability only. The Premier League says the sanction will be decided at a further private hearing before the same commission, and its rules allow sanctions including fines, points deductions and a recommendation that a club be expelled from the league. The league says City has until Friday, October 2, 2026 to appeal to an Appeal Board. Under the league's current handbook an Appeal Board has three members, one of whom has held judicial office, and an appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks (84 days) of filing under the standard directions. As of October 1, 2026 we found no report that City had formally lodged the appeal, no date for the sanction hearing and no date for an appeal hearing. The league says it will publish the commission's appendices when it can. Until then the sponsors, most individuals and much of the commission's reasoning remain unpublished, and DI does not speculate about who is behind a redaction.

Who has commented. Most named commentators we found treat the commission's finding as established or serious. They include the Premier League's chief executive, former players Gary Neville, Jamie Carragher and Wayne Rooney, and former City chairman David Bernstein. On City's side are the club, its chief executive and chairman and, before the decision was published, former City players Joe Hart and Rodri. Etihad rejects any suggestion that it was involved in improper arrangements, and Pep Guardiola posted support for the club without addressing the finding. Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and Jurgen Klopp declined to judge the finding. Regulator chair David Kogan said the decision raises serious issues but that the regulator will await further developments. As of October 1, 2026 we found no on-record statement about the finding from any named Premier League club, the EFL, the FA or UEFA.

People in this case

Jurgen KloppCommented
Lisa NandyCommented

Timeline

15 timeline entries on this page. Dates: November 2, 2018 to October 1, 2026

November 2018
1 event
1. November 2, 2018
  Der Spiegel begins publishing Football Leaks reports that include Manchester City
  Source release
  Der Spiegel and partner outlets began a series based on documents obtained through Football Leaks. Its English-language article, "Pact with the Sheikhs," reported, from leaked documents, on how City and Paris Saint-Germain dealt with UEFA's Financial Fair Play investigation, and the paper's allegations are its own. The commission's decision says the series followed a hack of City's servers in 2017 and made allegations about, among other things, the true source of recorded sponsorship fees. Sky Sports reported on November 6 that City repeated an earlier statement referring to "out of context materials purportedly hacked or stolen."
  [01]Financial Fair Play, Manchester City and PSG: Pact with the Sheikhs
  Der Spiegel's English-language article from the first day of its Football Leaks series, which reported on documents about City's finances. The paper's allegations are its own and are attributed to it here. The commission's decision refers to the series and says it followed a hack of the club's servers in 2017.
  Financial Fair Play, Manchester City and PSG: Pact with the SheikhsEnglish edition of the article published November 2, 2018, 18:01 CET
  [02]Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages)
  Source excerpt
  By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.
  The Premier League's published copy of the commission's core decision, redacted, with the names of the Abu Dhabi sponsors and most individuals blacked out. The commission's full award also includes a large number of appendices, which the league says it will publish when it can. The Premier League says the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that the decision is a final award, which is why part of it could be published. It is a first-instance decision, and the sanction has not been decided.
  Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages) · Premier LeagueParagraphs 1, 6-7, 29, 67-68, 72 and the table on page 20, 77, 81, 84-86, 101, 114 and 157-160
  [03]Manchester City respond to FFP claims in Der Spiegel (Sky Sports)
  Source excerpt
  City repeated the statement they issued last week, defending their position and referring to "out of context materials purportedly hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel and associated people
  Sky Sports' report from November 6, 2018 on City's response to the Der Spiegel reports. It says City repeated an earlier statement that referred to materials it said were hacked or stolen.
  Manchester City respond to FFP claims in Der Spiegel (Sky Sports) · Sky SportsParagraph on City's repeated statement
29 days between recorded events
December 2018
1 event
1. December 1, 2018
  Premier League opens its investigation into City, announced March 2019 (exact day in December 2018 not public)
  The Premier League says it began its investigation into City in December 2018. A Court of Appeal judgment records that UEFA's club finance body opened a formal investigation on March 7, 2019 and that the Premier League announced on March 8, 2019 that it was also investigating. The league issued a complaint under Section W of its rules in February 2023.
  [04]Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC
  Source excerpt
  The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade.
  The Premier League's statement of September 29, 2026 announcing the commission's findings, with a link to the redacted core decision. It summarizes the findings, gives a quotation from chief executive Richard Masters, says sanction will be decided at a separate private hearing and says City has until Friday, October 2 to appeal. The page shows a date but no time.
  Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC · Premier LeagueStatement, quotation from Richard Masters and Notes to Editors
  [05]Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1110
  Source excerpt
  In December 2018, the PL commenced a disciplinary investigation into the Club after allegations about the Club appeared in various European media reports which disclosed details of confidential documents obtained from a hack of the Club's email servers.
  A Court of Appeal judgment on a procedural dispute about publishing an earlier High Court ruling. DI cites only its background section, which records that the Premier League began its investigation in December 2018 and announced it on March 8, 2019.
  Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1110Background section: December 2018 start of the investigation and the Premier League's statement of March 8, 2019
440 days between recorded events
February 2020
1 event
1. February 14, 2020
  UEFA's club finance chamber excludes City from European competition; City says it will appeal
  UEFA's Club Financial Control Body adjudicatory chamber found that City committed serious breaches of UEFA's financial regulations by overstating sponsorship revenue in its accounts and break-even information between 2012 and 2016, and that it failed to co-operate. It excluded City from UEFA club competitions for two seasons and fined it 30 million euros. This was a separate proceeding under UEFA's rules. The Guardian reported that City said it would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.
  [06]Club Financial Control Body Adjudicatory Chamber decision on Manchester City Football Club
  Source excerpt
  The Adjudicatory Chamber has imposed disciplinary measures on Manchester City Football Club directing that it shall be excluded from participation in UEFA club competitions in the next two seasons (ie. the 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons) and pay a fine of € 30 million.
  UEFA's release on the decision of its Club Financial Control Body's adjudicatory chamber, which concerned UEFA's own regulations rather than the Premier League's rules. The chamber excluded City from UEFA club competitions for two seasons and fined it 30 million euros. The Court of Arbitration for Sport later set the decision aside.
  Club Financial Control Body Adjudicatory Chamber decision on Manchester City Football ClubUEFA release of February 14, 2020 (archived copy)
  [07]Manchester City banned from Champions League for two seasons (The Guardian)
  The Guardian's report of UEFA's February 14, 2020 decision, which also reports City's statement that it would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.
  Manchester City banned from Champions League for two seasons (The Guardian) · The GuardianParagraph reporting City's statement and its plan to appeal to CAS
150 days between recorded events
July 2020
1 event
1. July 13, 2020
  Court of Arbitration for Sport sets aside UEFA's exclusion and keeps a 10 million euro fine
  The Court of Arbitration for Sport lifted City's exclusion from UEFA club competitions and reduced its fine to 10 million euros. It said most of the alleged breaches were either not established or time-barred, and its release headline said City did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions but did fail to co-operate with UEFA. This decided a different dispute under UEFA's rules and a five-year limit. The commission's core decision says its treatment of the award is in an appendix that has not been published.
  [08]CAS media release: Manchester City FC v. UEFA (decision of July 13, 2020)
  Source excerpt
  The CAS award emphasized that most of the alleged breaches reported by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the CFCB were either not established or time-barred.
  The Court of Arbitration for Sport's summary of its decision on City's appeal against UEFA's 2020 ruling. It lifted the exclusion from UEFA competitions and reduced the fine to 10 million euros, saying most of the alleged breaches were not established or were time-barred. It decided a different dispute under UEFA's rules and a five-year limit. The commission's core decision says its treatment of that award is in an appendix that has not been published. The CAS website's own copy of this release is no longer available at the original address.
  CAS media release: Manchester City FC v. UEFA (decision of July 13, 2020)Media release of July 13, 2020 (archived copy)
  [09]Manchester City's Champions League ban lifted by court of arbitration for sport (The Guardian)
  The Guardian's report of the Court of Arbitration for Sport's July 13, 2020 decision. It says that, under UEFA's procedural rules, a prosecution must be brought within five years of the alleged breaches, and that the court found the charges either not established or time-barred.
  Manchester City's Champions League ban lifted by court of arbitration for sport (The Guardian) · The GuardianParagraph on the five-year limit in UEFA's procedural rules
  [02]Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages)
  Source excerpt
  By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.
  The Premier League's published copy of the commission's core decision, redacted, with the names of the Abu Dhabi sponsors and most individuals blacked out. The commission's full award also includes a large number of appendices, which the league says it will publish when it can. The Premier League says the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that the decision is a final award, which is why part of it could be published. It is a first-instance decision, and the sanction has not been decided.
  Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages) · Premier LeagueParagraphs 1, 6-7, 29, 67-68, 72 and the table on page 20, 77, 81, 84-86, 101, 114 and 157-160
938 days between recorded events
February 2023
1 event
1. February 6, 2023
  Premier League refers City to an independent commission; City says it is surprised
  The Premier League said it had referred a number of alleged breaches of its rules to a Commission, in five groups: accurate financial information for 2009/10 to 2017/18, manager and player remuneration, compliance with UEFA's regulations, profitability and sustainability, and co-operation with the league's investigation. It gave no total. City said it was surprised by the charges and welcomed review by an independent commission of what it called a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position.
  [10]Premier League statement: referral of Manchester City FC to a Commission (February 6, 2023)
  Source excerpt
  the Premier League confirms that it has today referred a number of alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules by Manchester City Football Club (Club) to a Commission under Premier League Rule W.3.4.
  The Premier League's statement that it had referred a number of alleged rule breaches by City to a Commission. It lists five groups of rules, covering accurate financial information for 2009/10 to 2017/18, manager and player remuneration, UEFA's regulations, profitability and sustainability, and co-operation with the league's investigation. It gives no total number of charges.
  Premier League statement: referral of Manchester City FC to a Commission (February 6, 2023) · Premier LeagueOpening paragraph and the five numbered groups of rules
  [11]Manchester City charged by Premier League after more than 100 alleged rule breaches (The42, PA)
  The42's report on the Premier League's referral of February 6, 2023, printing City's statement that day, in which the club said it was surprised and welcomed review by an independent commission.
  Manchester City charged by Premier League after more than 100 alleged rule breaches (The42, PA)Paragraph printing City's statement of February 6, 2023
588 days between recorded events
September 2024
1 event
1. September 16, 2024
  Hearing before the independent commission begins on September 16, 2024 and ends on December 6, 2024 after 42 sitting days
  The hearing of the charges began on September 16, 2024 and ended on December 6, 2024. The commission's decision says it sat for 42 days, with oral evidence from factual and expert witnesses over 34 days and four days of oral submissions at each end. It says it heard from 27 factual witnesses and that the process was extremely hard fought on both sides. It also calls it regrettable that producing its decision took much longer than it anticipated.
  [02]Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages)
  Source excerpt
  By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.
  The Premier League's published copy of the commission's core decision, redacted, with the names of the Abu Dhabi sponsors and most individuals blacked out. The commission's full award also includes a large number of appendices, which the league says it will publish when it can. The Premier League says the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that the decision is a final award, which is why part of it could be published. It is a first-instance decision, and the sanction has not been decided.
  Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages) · Premier LeagueParagraphs 1, 6-7, 29, 67-68, 72 and the table on page 20, 77, 81, 84-86, 101, 114 and 157-160
  [04]Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC
  Source excerpt
  The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade.
  The Premier League's statement of September 29, 2026 announcing the commission's findings, with a link to the redacted core decision. It summarizes the findings, gives a quotation from chief executive Richard Masters, says sanction will be decided at a separate private hearing and says City has until Friday, October 2 to appeal. The page shows a date but no time.
  Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC · Premier LeagueStatement, quotation from Richard Masters and Notes to Editors
739 days between recorded events
September 2026
8 events
1. September 25, 2026
  The Athletic reports that City has been found guilty on virtually all charges
  The Athletic's David Ornstein reported on X that City had been found guilty on virtually all charges. The Guardian reported that neither side would confirm the outcome that day, and that club executives are understood to have learned the outcome after a shareholders' meeting in central London on Thursday. A City spokesperson said the Premier League process remained ongoing.
  [12]David Ornstein on X: Manchester City found guilty on virtually all charges
  Source excerpt
  EXCLUSIVE: Manchester City found guilty on virtually all charges relating to breaches of Premier League financial regulations.
  The first public report that the commission had ruled, posted by The Athletic's reporter before the Premier League published anything. Neither the Premier League nor City confirmed the outcome that day.
  David Ornstein on X: Manchester City found guilty on virtually all chargesPost of September 25, 2026, 13:41 UTC
  [13]Manchester City found guilty of breaking Premier League's financial fair play rules
  The Guardian's report on the reported outcome, based on unnamed sources. It records that neither the Premier League nor City would confirm the outcome that day and quotes a City spokesperson saying the Premier League process remains ongoing.
  Manchester City found guilty of breaking Premier League's financial fair play rules · The GuardianReport of September 25, 2026 on the reported outcome and City's spokesperson's response
2. September 26, 2026
  City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak writes to fans that the club's confidence in proving its innocence is as strong as ever
  Reaction
  In an open letter responding to Friday's media reports, City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak said the club's confidence and intent in proving its innocence is as strong as when the case began, and that confidentiality stopped him from sharing why the club feels so confident. The letter asked supporters to read the club's statement of the previous day and its February 2023 statement.
  [14]Man City chairman breaks silence on 114 charges guilty verdict: 'We feel so confident'
  Sports Mole's article printing the whole of Khaldoon Al Mubarak's open letter to City supporters, dated September 26, 2026, which responds to Friday's media reports of a verdict. The club's own page for the letter was not reachable to us, so the wording rests on this copy, the BBC Sport copy and wire excerpts that agree.
  Man City chairman breaks silence on 114 charges guilty verdict: 'We feel so confident'Full text of the chairman's letter as printed in the article
  [15]Manchester City charges: Khaldoon Al Mubarak confident club will prove innocence (BBC Sport, September 26, 2026)
  BBC Sport's article of September 26, 2026 on the chairman's letter to fans, quoting its passage about confidence in proving the club's innocence.
  Manchester City charges: Khaldoon Al Mubarak confident club will prove innocence (BBC Sport, September 26, 2026) · BBCParagraphs quoting the letter
3. September 29, 2026
  Premier League publishes the commission's redacted core decision and a statement
  Source release
  The Premier League published a redacted, 40-page core decision and said the independent commission found City guilty of all charges about serious breaches of the league's financial rules over nine seasons and the majority of the charges about co-operation with its investigation. The commission described a number of the sponsorship agreements as shams or, alternatively, as not reflecting their economic substance, and found that the club clearly intended to circumvent the rules. The league says the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that the decision is a final award. Sanction is for a separate private hearing, and City has until October 2, 2026 to appeal.
  [04]Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC
  Source excerpt
  The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade.
  The Premier League's statement of September 29, 2026 announcing the commission's findings, with a link to the redacted core decision. It summarizes the findings, gives a quotation from chief executive Richard Masters, says sanction will be decided at a separate private hearing and says City has until Friday, October 2 to appeal. The page shows a date but no time.
  Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC · Premier LeagueStatement, quotation from Richard Masters and Notes to Editors
  [02]Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages)
  Source excerpt
  By its conduct the Club clearly intended to circumvent the PL Rules.
  The Premier League's published copy of the commission's core decision, redacted, with the names of the Abu Dhabi sponsors and most individuals blacked out. The commission's full award also includes a large number of appendices, which the league says it will publish when it can. The Premier League says the commission ruled, and an Appeal Board confirmed, that the decision is a final award, which is why part of it could be published. It is a first-instance decision, and the sanction has not been decided.
  Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages) · Premier LeagueParagraphs 1, 6-7, 29, 67-68, 72 and the table on page 20, 77, 81, 84-86, 101, 114 and 157-160
  [16]Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches
  BBC Sport's report on the Premier League's announcement. It prints the full text of City's club statement, quotations from Richard Masters, Lisa Nandy and David Bernstein, and a timeline of the case.
  Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches · BBCSections on the commission's findings, 'What have Manchester City said?' and the timeline of events
4. September 29, 2026
  City says it is innocent and will pursue appeal avenues
  Reaction
  City's club statement said the club is both disappointed and surprised by the commission's opinion, that it is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League, and that a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions. It said it would pursue the appeal avenues open to it on the basis that the opinion contains clear material errors of law, principle and fact and is unsafe. City's statement and Etihad's later statement both call the body a Premier League commission; Sky Sports notes that it is an independent commission.
  [16]Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches
  BBC Sport's report on the Premier League's announcement. It prints the full text of City's club statement, quotations from Richard Masters, Lisa Nandy and David Bernstein, and a timeline of the case.
  Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches · BBCSections on the commission's findings, 'What have Manchester City said?' and the timeline of events
  [17]Man City claim innocence and confirm plan to appeal 'unsafe' guilty verdict
  The Standard's report on City's response, printing the club's statement in full. It matches the BBC Sport copy of the statement.
  Man City claim innocence and confirm plan to appeal 'unsafe' guilty verdict · The StandardCity's statement, as printed in the article
5. September 29, 2026
  City chief executive Ferran Soriano's video to staff circulates
  Reaction
  An internal video in which City chief executive Ferran Soriano told staff that the Premier League case rests on a single false accusation about the owner's money, and that the commission had issued an opinion supporting the league's conspiracy theory, circulated publicly on the evening of September 29, 2026. The Guardian and others reported it, and Fabrizio Romano posted the video at 19:29 UTC. Soriano said the club's lawyers will file an appeal. BBC Sport reported that he declined to comment when approached by its reporter.
  [18]Fabrizio Romano on X: Ferran Soriano's video message to Manchester City staff
  A public copy of the internal video that City's chief executive sent to staff on the evening of September 29, 2026. City did not publish it, and no outlet or City has said it is not authentic. The post text carries a transcript, which differs in small ways from the audio. The quotation follows the spoken words, not the post's transcript.
  Fabrizio Romano on X: Ferran Soriano's video message to Manchester City staffVideo attached to the post (3 minutes 29 seconds); the passage quoted runs from about 00:29 to 01:58
  [19]Manchester City CEO Soriano says guilty verdicts are 'a Premier League conspiracy theory'
  The Guardian's report on Soriano's video, quoting three passages of it. The headline paraphrases the video; Soriano's own words are the Premier League's 'conspiracy theory' in a sentence about the Premier League's case.
  Manchester City CEO Soriano says guilty verdicts are 'a Premier League conspiracy theory' · The GuardianParagraphs quoting the video message
  [16]Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches
  BBC Sport's report on the Premier League's announcement. It prints the full text of City's club statement, quotations from Richard Masters, Lisa Nandy and David Bernstein, and a timeline of the case.
  Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches · BBCSections on the commission's findings, 'What have Manchester City said?' and the timeline of events
6. September 30, 2026
  Pep Guardiola posts support for the club, its owner and its chairman
  Reaction
  A post on the X account that describes itself as the official account of Pep Guardiola, City's manager from 2016 until the end of the 2025-26 season, said he is "behind my club, my owner, my chairman, Ferran, the players, staff, Enzo and you," and that "we will get through this together." The post does not mention the commission, the charges or the appeal.
  [20]Pep Guardiola on X: 'I want every single @ManCity fan to know I am here; more than ever.'
  Source excerpt
  I want every single @ManCity fan to know I am here; more than ever. I am, always have been, always will, be behind my club, my owner, my chairman, Ferran, the players, staff, Enzo and you, our unique supporters.
  A post on the X account whose profile says it is the official account of Pep Guardiola. It does not mention the commission, the charges or the appeal. Guardiola left City at the end of the 2025-26 season.
  Pep Guardiola on X: 'I want every single @ManCity fan to know I am here; more than ever.'Post of September 30, 2026, 12:10 UTC
7. September 30, 2026
  Independent Football Regulator chair and the Prime Minister respond
  Reaction
  Independent Football Regulator chair David Kogan said the commission's decision raises serious issues, that the regulator can assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals, and that it will await further developments. In a BBC News interview, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said it would be wrong to jump to a conclusion before studying the detail, and that he would be really concerned to lose City's owners.
  [21]IFR Statement - Manchester City
  Source excerpt
  The independent commission’s decision raises serious issues.
  The regulator's own statement on its website, dated September 30, 2026 and attributed to its chair, David Kogan.
  IFR Statement - Manchester City · Independent Football RegulatorWhole statement, attributed to IFR Chair David Kogan
  [22]Andy Burnham 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches (BBC News)
  BBC News' article on the interview, recorded at Everton's stadium. It quotes Burnham comparing City's position with Everton's 2023 case and saying it would be wrong of him to leap to one side.
  Andy Burnham 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches (BBC News) · BBCParagraphs quoting Burnham on Everton and on leaping to one side
  [23]PM: I'd be 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell club (BBC News video)
  BBC News' 37-second clip of Prime Minister Andy Burnham answering political editor Chris Mason's questions about City's owners and the commission's decision. The wording follows the spoken words in the clip.
  PM: I'd be 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell club (BBC News video) · BBC00:27 to 00:37 (last two statements of the 37-second clip)
8. September 30, 2026
  Etihad Airways rejects any suggestion it was involved in improper arrangements and says it will seek legal advice
  Reaction
  Etihad Airways, City's principal shirt sponsor since 2009, said it categorically rejects any finding, conclusion or implication that suggests it has been involved in improper commercial arrangements, that it is not named in the published findings, and that the Premier League did not reach out to or engage with it. It said it stands with the club and will seek legal counsel on the options and recourse available to protect its interests. The Premier League declined to comment when BBC Sport asked about the statement.
  [24]Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League
  Sky Sports' report, updated on October 1, 2026, printing Etihad Airways' statement in full. It also says that Lucozade, Kellogg's and Revolut told Sky they are not commenting while the process is ongoing, and that Majestic Wines refused to say whether it will continue its partnership with City. Sky notes that Etihad's statement and City's statement both call the body a Premier League commission, when it was an independent commission.
  Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League · Sky Sports'Etihad Airways statement in full' section; also the paragraphs on other sponsors
  [25]City sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League
  The Guardian's report on Etihad's statement, released on the evening of September 30, 2026. It says Etihad has been City's principal shirt sponsor since 2009 and repeats most of the statement.
  City sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League · The GuardianParagraphs quoting Etihad's statement
  [26]Manchester City charges: Punishment before end of season, Premier League clubs believe (BBC Sport, September 30, 2026)
  Source excerpt
  The Premier League declined to comment when contacted by BBC Sport.
  BBC Sport's report from the evening of September 30, 2026, recording that the Premier League declined to comment when asked about Etihad's statement. The cited sentence is on the live page; the linked archive copy was captured earlier in the evening and lacks it.
  Manchester City charges: Punishment before end of season, Premier League clubs believe (BBC Sport, September 30, 2026) · BBCParagraph saying the Premier League declined to comment when contacted by BBC Sport
October 2026
1 event
1. October 1, 2026
  As of October 1, 2026: appeal deadline is next day, sanction hearing undated, some City sponsors decline to comment
  The Premier League says City has until Friday, October 2, 2026 to appeal, and City's statement says it will pursue the appeal avenues open to it. We found no report that the appeal had been formally lodged. The sanction will be decided at a separate private hearing for which we found no date. Sky Sports reports that Lucozade, Kellogg's and Revolut said they are not commenting while the process is ongoing, and that Majestic Wines would not say whether it will continue its partnership. These are current City sponsors, and the published decision names no sponsor. DI does not suggest that any of them was involved in the arrangements the commission described. The Premier League's rules say an appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks (84 days) of filing under the standard directions.
  [24]Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League
  Sky Sports' report, updated on October 1, 2026, printing Etihad Airways' statement in full. It also says that Lucozade, Kellogg's and Revolut told Sky they are not commenting while the process is ongoing, and that Majestic Wines refused to say whether it will continue its partnership with City. Sky notes that Etihad's statement and City's statement both call the body a Premier League commission, when it was an independent commission.
  Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League · Sky Sports'Etihad Airways statement in full' section; also the paragraphs on other sponsors
  [04]Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC
  Source excerpt
  The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade.
  The Premier League's statement of September 29, 2026 announcing the commission's findings, with a link to the redacted core decision. It summarizes the findings, gives a quotation from chief executive Richard Masters, says sanction will be decided at a separate private hearing and says City has until Friday, October 2 to appeal. The page shows a date but no time.
  Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC · Premier LeagueStatement, quotation from Richard Masters and Notes to Editors
  [16]Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches
  BBC Sport's report on the Premier League's announcement. It prints the full text of City's club statement, quotations from Richard Masters, Lisa Nandy and David Bernstein, and a timeline of the case.
  Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches · BBCSections on the commission's findings, 'What have Manchester City said?' and the timeline of events
  [27]Premier League Handbook 2026/27, Section W (Disciplinary)
  Source excerpt
  An appeal shall be commenced by the appellant sending by email to the Chair of the Judicial Panel Form 23 or Form 24, as the case may be, and copies of any documents it intends to rely upon in support so that it is received within 14 days of the date of the decision appealed against (time being of the essence)
  The league's 2026/27 rule book. The case was brought under earlier editions, and the Premier League's statement does not say which edition governs the appeal, so the rule numbers here are cited only to show how the appeal stage works. Section W says an appeal is heard by a three-member Appeal Board chaired by someone who has held judicial office, must be commenced within 14 days of the decision, and should conclude within 12 weeks of filing.
  Premier League Handbook 2026/27, Section W (Disciplinary) · Premier LeagueRules W.77 (Appeal Board), W.81 (14 days to appeal), W.86 (12 weeks), W.96 (powers) and W.105.5 (publication of final awards)

Claims

Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.

3 responses on this page

Andy BurnhamSeptember 30, 2026
"I can't intervene more in the process. It would be wrong for me to do that. It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail."
Explicitly stayed out
Case context: Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies?
Read more
In a BBC News interview on September 30, 2026, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said "I can't intervene more in the process" and that "It would be wrong, I think, to jump to a conclusion before having really studied all of the detail." BBC News reports that in the same interview he said he would be really concerned to lose City's owners, thanked them for their investment in Manchester, called the situation contested by City, and compared it with Everton's 2023 case, which he thinks was handled unfairly.
Role at the time: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in an interview with the BBC's political editor
Before the statement
Burnham became Prime Minister on July 20, 2026 and was Mayor of Greater Manchester until June. BBC News says he was asked by political editor Chris Mason whether he was concerned that City's owners might now sell the club, and that he was speaking from Everton's stadium. He supports Everton.
After the statement
The BBC says he added that it would be wrong for him to leap to one side given his experience of the Everton case before becoming Prime Minister, and that he was of course confident his own dealings with City's owners as mayor would stand up to scrutiny. As of October 1, 2026, no sanction had been set.
PM: I'd be 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell club (BBC News video) · BBC00:27 to 00:37 (last two statements of the 37-second clip)
Andy Burnham 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches (BBC News) · BBCParagraphs quoting Burnham on Everton and on leaping to one side
Why this label?
Relative to the proposition that City used sponsorship contracts the commission described as shams, and related arrangements, to misstate its finances and circumvent the Premier League's financial rules, as the commission found, Burnham says it would be wrong to jump to a conclusion before studying the detail and that he cannot intervene more in the process. That expressly declines to judge the finding, so we used Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he also praises the owners and says he thinks Everton was treated unfairly in 2023, but those remarks do not state a position on whether City did what the commission found.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Jurgen KloppSeptember 30, 2026
"Wir haben uns auf dem Platz bekämpft, über das andere kann ich nichts sagen, weil ich nicht weiß, um was es da genau geht ... Es interessiert mich ehrlich gesagt auch nicht sonderlich."
Explicitly stayed out
Case context: Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies?
Read more
Asked at a Germany press conference on September 30, 2026 about City's verdict and his earlier remark that he would come to a Liverpool title parade, Klopp said in German that he could not say anything about the other matter because he did not know exactly what it was about, and that it did not much interest him. He added that if punishments were handed down he had nothing to do with it and would wait. Earlier in his answer he spoke of his respect for Guardiola and for City's football. English-language reports translate his words differently, so we quote the German.
Role at the time: Head coach of the Germany men's national team and former Liverpool manager, at a German football federation press conference
Before the statement
Klopp became Germany's head coach on August 15, 2026 after leaving Liverpool in 2024. In January 2025, while working for Red Bull, he joked about holding his own parade in his garden if City were stripped of titles, according to The Independent. The question at the press conference came from a SPORT1 reporter.
After the statement
SPORT1 reports that he added he would wait on developments very calmly. The Independent's headline says Klopp addresses his Liverpool parade comments. As of October 1, 2026, no sanction had been set.
Pressekonferenz der Nationalmannschaft mit Jurgen Klopp und Jonas Urbig (DFB video)17:33 to 18:46 (answer given in German to a question from SPORT1)
Klopp reagiert auf City-Skandal (SPORT1)Paragraphs quoting Klopp's answer
Jurgen Klopp speaks out on Man City guilty verdict as he addresses Liverpool 'parade' comments · The IndependentParagraphs translating Klopp's answer and recalling his January 2025 remark
Why this label?
Relative to the proposition that City used sponsorship contracts the commission described as shams, and related arrangements, to misstate its finances and circumvent the Premier League's financial rules, as the commission found, Klopp says he cannot and will not say anything about the case because he does not know what it concerns, and that it does not much interest him. That expressly chooses not to address the finding, so we used Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is not a position event, because the remark answers a question about the verdict rather than adding a view, but he answered the question by declining. He also walks back his earlier parade remark, which concerns Liverpool's titles rather than the finding.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Lisa NandySeptember 29, 2026
"I don’t want to preempt any kind of appeal process, and they are entitled to a fair hearing. But what I would say is that the ultimate sanction is very serious indeed."
Explicitly stayed out
Case context: Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies?
Read more
Speaking to Channel 5 News on September 29, 2026, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said "I don't want to preempt any kind of appeal process, and they are entitled to a fair hearing." She added that "the ultimate sanction is very serious indeed."
Role at the time: UK Culture Secretary (Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport), in an interview with Channel 5 News
Before the statement
The Premier League published the commission's decision on September 29, 2026. BBC Sport's report of the same day also quotes Nandy calling the league's report incredibly serious and stark.
After the statement
PA reports that she went on to say a club can be expelled from the Premier League if allegations of this kind are upheld, and that the bigger issue is making sure the rules are clearly understood and applied consistently. As of October 1, 2026, no sanction had been set.
Lisa Nandy warns of 'ultimate sanction' after Man City guilty verdict (PA Media)Paragraphs quoting Nandy's interview with Channel 5 News
Lisa Nandy warns Manchester City over future after guilty verdicts (Manchester Evening News)Paragraphs quoting Nandy
Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches · BBCSections on the commission's findings, 'What have Manchester City said?' and the timeline of events
Why this label?
Relative to the proposition that City used sponsorship contracts the commission described as shams, and related arrangements, to misstate its finances and circumvent the Premier League's financial rules, as the commission found, Nandy says she does not want to pre-empt the appeal process and that City is entitled to a fair hearing, and then turns to the seriousness of the possible sanction. That expressly declines to judge the finding, so we used Explicitly stayed out. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because she also says expulsion is possible if allegations are upheld, but that concerns the penalty rather than a position on the finding.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement

Sources

(44)

Original text

Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages)

Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages) · Premier LeagueParagraphs 1, 6-7, 29, 67-68, 72 and the table on page 20, 77, 81, 84-86, 101, 114 and 157-160

Overview

People in this case

Follow the Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies? dispute

Timeline

Der Spiegel begins publishing Football Leaks reports that include Manchester City

Premier League opens its investigation into City, announced March 2019 (exact day in December 2018 not public)

UEFA's club finance chamber excludes City from European competition; City says it will appeal

Court of Arbitration for Sport sets aside UEFA's exclusion and keeps a 10 million euro fine

Premier League refers City to an independent commission; City says it is surprised

Hearing before the independent commission begins on September 16, 2024 and ends on December 6, 2024 after 42 sitting days

The Athletic reports that City has been found guilty on virtually all charges

City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak writes to fans that the club's confidence in proving its innocence is as strong as ever

Premier League publishes the commission's redacted core decision and a statement

City says it is innocent and will pursue appeal avenues

City chief executive Ferran Soriano's video to staff circulates

Pep Guardiola posts support for the club, its owner and its chairman

Independent Football Regulator chair and the Prime Minister respond

Etihad Airways rejects any suggestion it was involved in improper arrangements and says it will seek legal advice

As of October 1, 2026: appeal deadline is next day, sanction hearing undated, some City sponsors decline to comment

Claims

What's disputed

Sources

Premier League v Manchester City: independent Commission's redacted core decision (40 pages)

Manchester City's Champions League ban lifted by court of arbitration for sport (The Guardian)

ITV Sport: reaction to reports of the commission's outcome, including Rodri's press-conference answer

Rodri speaks after guilty verdict reports (press conference footage, HaytersTV)

Manchester City charged by Premier League after more than 100 alleged rule breaches (The42, PA)

Manchester City banned from Champions League for two seasons (The Guardian)

Manchester City respond to FFP claims in Der Spiegel (Sky Sports)

Joe Hart on Man City: 'no reason not to trust Khaldoon' (BBC Sport)

Man City must be relegated after guilty verdict, says club's former chairman (AFP via Yahoo Sports)

Lisa Nandy warns Manchester City over future after guilty verdicts (Manchester Evening News)

Lisa Nandy warns of 'ultimate sanction' after Man City guilty verdict (PA Media)

Andy Burnham 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell up after rule breaches (BBC News)

PM: I'd be 'really concerned' if Man City owners sell club (BBC News video)

Jurgen Klopp speaks out on Man City guilty verdict as he addresses Liverpool 'parade' comments

Klopp reagiert auf City-Skandal (SPORT1)

Pressekonferenz der Nationalmannschaft mit Jurgen Klopp und Jonas Urbig (DFB video)

Manchester City charges: Roy Keane says medals worthless after guilty finding (BBC Sport)

Stick to United, episode 7: Rooney on Man City (video)

Man City Premier League charges: Jamie Carragher says club's titles should be stripped and owners removed

Jamie Carragher's honest opinion on Man City found guilty of serious breaches of PL financial rules (Sky Sports video)

Gary Neville says Premier League 'dragged through the mud' after 'chilling' Man City verdict

Gary Neville names 'only fair' punishment for Man City after 'chilling' verdict (Daily Mirror)

The Overlap: Stick to Football, episode 151 (video)

Pep Guardiola on X: 'I want every single @ManCity fan to know I am here; more than ever.'

Manchester City charges: Khaldoon Al Mubarak confident club will prove innocence (BBC Sport, September 26, 2026)

Man City chairman breaks silence on 114 charges guilty verdict: 'We feel so confident'

Manchester City CEO Soriano says guilty verdicts are 'a Premier League conspiracy theory'

Fabrizio Romano on X: Ferran Soriano's video message to Manchester City staff

Manchester City found guilty of breaking Premier League's financial fair play rules

Manchester City charges: Punishment before end of season, Premier League clubs believe (BBC Sport, September 30, 2026)

Etihad Airways statement in full as Premier League could face legal action over Man City ruling

City sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against the Premier League

Man City charges: Club sponsor Etihad Airways considering legal action against Premier League

Man City claim innocence and confirm plan to appeal 'unsafe' guilty verdict

Manchester City charges: Premier League confirms club guilty of all charges related to financial rule breaches

David Ornstein on X: Manchester City found guilty on virtually all charges

Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1110

CAS media release: Manchester City FC v. UEFA (decision of July 13, 2020)

Club Financial Control Body Adjudicatory Chamber decision on Manchester City Football Club

Financial Fair Play, Manchester City and PSG: Pact with the Sheikhs

IFR Statement - Manchester City

Premier League Handbook 2026/27, Section W (Disciplinary)

Premier League statement: referral of Manchester City FC to a Commission (February 6, 2023)

Premier League Statement: Manchester City FC

Follow the Did Manchester City use 'sham' sponsorships to circumvent Premier League financial rules, as an independent commission found and the club denies? dispute

Follow disputes like this one.

Cite this record